Parashat Mattot begins with the rules for making vows (נדרים). A vow, “a stylized promise involving conditions, reciprocity, and consequences,” which “is a means of creating and reinforcing a relationship with the deity,”[1] was a central and longstanding feature of personal religion in Israel.

Examples of נדרים (“Stylized Vows”) in the BibleThe stylization of vows is especially reflected in their “if… then…” pattern, found, for example, in the following stories:

Jacob then made a vow, saying, “If God remains with me, if He protects me on this journey that I am making, and gives me bread to eat and clothing to wear, and if I return safe to my father’s house—[then] YHWH shall be my God. And this stone, which I have set up as a pillar, shall be God’s abode; and of all that You give me, I will set aside a tithe for You.

And Jephthah vowed a vow to YHWH saying: ‘If you will give the children of Ammon into my hand, [then]it will be: the one who goes out from the doors of my house to greet me when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, and it will be for YHWH, and I will offer it up as a sacrifice.

Jephthah’s Vow

The third example is particularly telling. After Jephthah returns home from battle, his daughter greets him (Judg 11:34):

When Jephthah arrived at his home in Mizpah, there was his daughter coming out to meet him, with timbrel and dance! She was an only child; he had no other son or daughter.

He then explains to her that he is bound by his vow (Judg 11:35):

וְאָנֹכִי פָּצִיתִי פִי אֶל יְ-הוָה וְלֹא אוּכַל לָשׁוּב׃

And I, I have opened my mouth to YHWH and I am not able to turn back.

Jephthah’s daughter’s response emphasizes the reciprocal nature of the vow—YHWH fulfilled his end of the deal, so Jephthah must fulfill his. This response reflects the cultural and social environment in which vows and oaths are considered to be uncompromisingly binding (Judg 11:36):

And she said to him, ‘My father, you opened your mouth to YHWH. Do to me according to what went out from your mouth, since YHWH made vengeance for you upon your enemies, the children of Ammon.

A man who utters a vow or swears an oath is bound to it without exception, even when his own child’s life hangs in the balance.[2] A similar idea is reflected in the story of Hannah.

Hannah’s Vow

In 1 Sam 1:11, Hannah vows to YHWH, pledging that if God grants her a son, she will devote him to God. Hannah’s husband Elkanah is not present when she makes this vow; in fact, she makes it so quietly that Eli the priest, who is present, thinks she is rambling drunk instead of fervently praying.

Hannah conceives and bears a son; sometime later, when Elkanah is about to return to the Tabernacle in Shiloh, Hannah informs her husband that she will not participate with the child in the annual sacrifice and votive offering until after the child is weaned, because once she brings him before YHWH, he must stay there forever. It is not clear if this is the first Elkanah hears of Hannah’s vow. Elkanah replies simply that she should do what she thinks is best, a popular phrase in the Bible, used, for example, by Abraham to Sarah about Hagar (Gen 16:6). This story shows that women could offer and fulfill vows in ancient Israel.

Women’s Vows Versus Men’s Vows
in Numbers

If the stories of Jephthah and Hannah suggest parity between a man’s and a woman’s vow, the picture is quite different in the opening section of Parashat Mattot (Num 30:2-16). It begins with one verse about men’s vows, the rules of which are straightforward (v. 3), emphasizing the uncompromisingly binding nature of a vow or oath:

A man who vows a vow to YHWH or swears an oath to bind a bond upon himself: he will not profane his word. For all that goes out from his mouth, he will do.

The verse shares the language used by Jephthah’s daughter: כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. This phrase emphasizes that an oath or vow made to YHWH must be fulfilled, and cannot be broken – no matter the circumstances or consequences.

This simple picture, however, contrasts sharply with the rules for a woman’s vow, which take up the rest of the pericope (14 verses), explaining the circumstances under which women are and are not bound by the oaths and vows they utter. The passage explains that vows of dependent women—minors (vv. 4-9) or married women (11-16)—may be annulled by those upon whom they depend (fathers, husbands), while only independent women—widows and divorcées—must automatically fulfill their vows.

The summary verse of this unit makes it clear that this section is not about vows per se, but about women’s vows:

Those are the laws that YHWH enjoined upon Moses between a man and his wife, and as between a father and his daughter while in her father’s household by reason of her youth.

This raises an important question about the relative position of women and men in ancient Israel: Why are women limited by fathers or husbands in the making of vows and oaths?[3]

A Women Doesn’t Own Possessions

Baruch Levine understands Numbers 30 in economic terms:

It would appear that Numbers 30 was aimed at restricting the traditional right of women to make verbal commitments that involved cost and value.[4]

In other words, a woman who lives in either her father’s house or her husband’s house and pledges something to YHWH is pledging something that is not really hers, which she in fact does not have the authority to dispense. Thus, the man responsible for this woman making the vow either has the duty to consent and then be liable to deliver on her vow, or to nullify the pledge on the day he hears of it, thus protecting her from punishment owed to a person who makes a vow but does not fulfill it.

Why Financial Dependence is
Not a Sufficient Explanation

While Levine’s claim has some explanatory power, assuming that married women and women in their father’s household did not own their own property, it is not a sufficient explanation of this chapter’s laws. For one thing, Num 30 speaks repeatedly of vows with which she “imposes obligations on herself (לאסר אסר על נפשה)”; these refer to all vows, even those that need not involve property. In fact, v. 14 specifically refers to a woman’s pledge involving her own body, and self-denial:

Every vow and every sworn obligation of self-denial may be upheld by her husband or annulled by her husband.

According to this, she cannot even vow to fast, for example, without her father or husband having the right to nullify that vow. This has nothing to do with the woman’s economic rights. Furthermore, if the main concern of this passage was economic, it should also contain a stipulation that the father could annul the vow of his minor son, who like the women described in this chapter, also lacked control over his economic resources. Thus, economic considerations alone cannot explain these laws.

Women with Financial PowerFurthermore, a limited number of texts outside of the Torah suggest that ancient Israelite women could own property.[5] The example of Abigail (1Sam 25) illustrates that at least in some instances the woman of the house was able to procure and dispense economic goods on her own. The “woman of substance” in Proverbs 31 “considers a field and buys it” in v 16, and she tastes of “her commerce” in v 18. This evidence makes Levine’s assertion that the only consideration here is economic further problematic.

In fact, a careful reading of Numbers 30 suggests various layers of authority, responsibility, and power within a household.

The Position of the Widow

Any limits to a woman’s pledges were placed by those who were responsible for their behaviors as representatives of the household’s patriarch, and not as autonomous agents in their own right. This explains the unique position of the widow and divorcée (Num 30:10).

And the vow of a widow or a divorcée: all which she binds upon herself will stand upon her.

The verse doesn’t specify where the widow or divorcée lives; she may indeed live with her father, or with her oldest son (for example, Tamar is referred to as an almanah living in her father’s house in Gen 38:11). Indeed, Lev 22:13 indicates that a priest’s daughter who is widowed or divorced may return to live in her father’s house.[6]

Unmarried (Young) Woman vs. Widow or Divorcée: A Question of Status not SupportThe point is that, whether supported by her father or not, a widow or divorcée must fulfill her vows; her father cannot veto them. Only a maiden living with her father in her youth (בנעוריה; v. 4) is subject to his constraints. The fact that v. 4 goes out of its way to suggest that the law only applies to a woman living in her father’s house in her youth (בנעוריה) might indicate that women who remained unmarried but grew older in their fathers’ households were fully autonomous in terms of their vows and oaths. Additionally, once a woman has been married and then becomes single, she is no longer under the umbrella of her father’s household but is an independent unit, irrespective of whether she is dependent on her father’s finances (as many likely were).

Thus, we see that the status of an independent adult is not simply a matter of gender or economics, or even the combination of the two. Instead, it reflects conceptions of social hierarchy and norms of when a woman is considered a dependent unit (namely maidens in their father’s house and wives) and when independent (namely widows and divorcée, no matter where they live).

Nedarim as Public Obligation

An anomaly at the beginning of our pericope may be related to the reason behind why certain women’s vows are subject to veto. The laws of vows and oaths (Numbers 30) begin in v. 2 with a unique address by Moses specifically to the rashei hammattot (tribal leaders) as opposed to the more common bnei yisrael, “children of Israel.”[7] Why?

Nahmanides (1194-1270) answers this question by suggesting that it was best to hide this rule from the common people, since it might make women more lax about vowing, and thus Moses told only the leaders and not the commoners.[8] Alternatively, I suggest that it has to do with the complex social place of vows, which intersects public, private, and ritual spheres. On one hand, vows involve public matters, including payment or offering of sacrifice at the altar. On the other hand, the vow itself need not be a temple-based ritual act and its fulfillment at a temple does not require the involvement of a priest.

Rashei HaMattot: Public but not Priestly OfficialsFor the most part, public matters (including public religious matters)[9] are addressed to the bnei yisrael as a whole, and religious matters involving the priests and sanctuary are addressed to the priests.[10] While the making of a vow could be private, repayment of vows was public, involving some kind of public donation – sacrificial or votive – to God. For example, while Hannah’s vow took place in the context of private, personal prayer (above), her repayment of it is accompanied by sacrificial offerings involving the priests at Shiloh (1 Sam 1:24ff). Similarly, the Nazirite vow in Numbers 6, although described as a private undertaking for the individual who makes it, culminates in a public ritual at the Tent of Meeting (Num 6:13-16).

This repayment and public offering was likely performed by and/or with the male head of household—in the case of Hannah, Elkanah (1Sam 1:25). Perhaps this pericope envisions the tribal leaders as a kind of interface between the private lives of the clans and households on the one hand, and the public life of the larger community on the other.

Limited Patriarchy

The laws about vows and oaths reflect the complexity of gender relationships in ancient Israel, illustrating some of the problems of viewing Israel as a totally patriarchal society.[11] Although it might be viewed as a male-favoring society, the Bible does not suggest that all men have power over all women. Although the laws of vows demonstrates that in the Priestly legislation, maidens in their fathers’ houses and married women were subservient to their fathers or husbands, it also shows that some women—widows and divorcées—could act as independent agents.

The story of Hannah, which is independent of the Priestly legislation may show a married woman acting independently of her husband. The Priestly legislation that explicitly mentions the ability of a woman to declare herself a nazirite (Num 6:2), also reflects women’s independence.[12]

Finally, the fact that Parashat Mattot spends fourteen verses discussing women’s vows, shows that even women without independent status were given a way to obligate themselves in oaths and vows and thereby participate in this important ritual aspect of Israelite society. The legislation here neither bans the right of women to vow, nor declares all women’s vows null and void, but finds a way for women to participate in this important ritual, which allows women to attain a direct and personal relationship with God.

___________________

Dr. Shawna Dolansky is adjunct research professor in the College of Humanities and Program in Religion at Carleton University, in Ottawa, Canada. She received her M.A. in Judaic Studies and Ph.D. in History from the University of California, San Diego program in the Hebrew Bible and the ancient Near East. Dolansky is the author of Now You See It, Now You Don’t: Biblical Perspectives on the Relationship Between Magic and Religion (Pryor Pettengill Press, Eisenbrauns, 2008) and co-author with Richard E. Friedman of The Bible Now (Oxford University Press, 2011).

[2] For more discussion of Jephthah’s vow, see David Marcus, Jephthah and His Vow (Texas Tech University Press, 1986).

[3] Another question, for which we don’t really have an answer in the biblical text, is what would be the practical reality of a woman who makes a vow, has YHWH fulfill his end of the bargain, and then her father or husband hears of her pledge? Would he truly be empowered to constrain her from giving the pledged gift to the deity in return? The example of Hannah and Elkanah comes to mind; after the child has been granted, if Elkanah hears of the vow only as Hannah is about to fulfill it by dedicating the child to YHWH, according to Numbers 30 it is within his rights nullify the pledge. But would it have been conceivable to do so after God had fulfilled his end of the bargain?

[4] Levine sees Numbers 30 as a later, Persian period addition designed to restrict the ability of women to pledge the belongings of their fathers and husbands (Numbers 21-36. Anchor Bible Commentary Series, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 435. See also T.W. Cartledge, Vows in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 147; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1992); J. Berlinerblau, The Vow and the ‘Popular Religious Groups’ of Ancient Israel: A Philological and Sociological Inquiry (JSOTSup 210; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1996).

[5] The oft-cited example of the daughters of Zelophehad in Numbers 27 does not necessarily show that women controlled property in ancient Israel, but that women could, in very limited circumstances, inherit property in trust for their sons.

[6] It also specifies, however, that she may only eat of the offering if she is without offspring. See the discussion of this in Sarah Shectman, “The Social Status of Priestly and Levite Women,” in Levites and Priests in History and Tradition, (eds. Mark Leuchter and Jeremy Hutton; Atlanta: SBL Press) 2011, 83-99.

[7] Another anomaly, pointed out by Rashbam, is that the verse does not actually follow any command by God; Moses seems to be speaking on his own authority:

[11] For some discussion of patriarchy in ancient Israel, especially as it relates to ritual matters, see Ada Taggar-Cohen’s TABS essay, “Why Are There No Israelite Priestesses?” Carol Meyers has been at the forefront of arguments against the use of the term “patriarchy” to characterize biblical Israel for the past three decades: see most recently, Carol Meyers, “Was Ancient Israel a Patriarchal Society?” Journal of Biblical Literature, 133.1 (2014): 8-27. For further discussion of the complicated nature of women’s status in ancient Israel, see The Bible Now by Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky (Oxford University Press, 2011), chapter 3.

[12] It is worth noting that the nazirite legislation in Num 6 makes no mention of the possibility of veto. Nevertheless, Susan Niditch (“Vowing Women,” 339) assumes that the nazirite vow falls under the same purview as general vows in Num 30, and so a woman’s right to become a nazirite is just as circumscribed as any other vow. This seems likely to me, since I don’t see why nazirite vows would be an exception to the rules in num 30, which would seem to cover any type of woman’s vow.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in the articles/divrei Torah on this site are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of TABS.

TheTorah.com

A Historical and Contextual Approach TM

Mission

Project TABS (Torah And Biblical Scholarship) is an educational organization founded to energize the Jewish people by integrating the study of the Torah and other Jewish texts with the disciplines and findings of academic scholarship.